On rounding algorithms for the 2-edge-connected spanning subgraph problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A connected loopless graph is 2-edge-connected if it remains connected after the removal of at most one of its edges. Many combinatorial optimization problems seek, for a given graph with costs on its edges, a spanning subgraph satisfying certain connectivity constraints. The minimum 2-edge-connected spanning subgraph problem (2-ECSSP) is a problem of this type. It can be formulated as an integer linear program that selects edges of minimum total cost satisfying the restriction that every cut of the given graph is covered by at least two of the selected edges. This problem is known to be NP-hard. This thesis develops rounding algorithms for three variants of 2-ECSSP, focusing on rounding half-integral solutions of the corresponding linear relaxation. This family of solutions often yields the largest known integrality ratio for various subproblems of 2-ECSSP. The first problem we investigate is the half-integral 2-ECSSP with unrestricted costs. We develop a novel 5/3-rounding that, to the best of our knowledge, is the first one with a factor better than 2. Moreover, we design a reduction scheme, restricting the problem to 4-edge-connected graphs with maximum degree at most five. Then, we study the matching augmentation problem (MAP), a subproblem of 2-ECSSP in which the edge costs are either 0 or 1 and the zero cost edges define a matching. We survey a better-than-2-approximation, obtained in 2022 by Bamas, Drygala, and Svensson, presenting a comprehensive proof of their result and determining an improved factor. Additionally, we address conjectures posed in their work and present computational experiments to support our findings. Finally, we discuss the 2-edge-connected spanning multisubgraph problem (2-ECSMP), a variation of 2-ECSSP in which multiple copies of the same edge can be selected. We survey a recent work by Boyd et al. on a 4/3-rounding for the half-integral 2-ECSMP and leverage their techniques to prove novel decomposition theorems for 4-regular 4-edge-connected graphs. Finally, we pose two conjectures concerning extensions of the decomposition results, suggesting new research directions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".